March 22, 2008

... here ... because something moved me to participate in the comments and I think you may enjoy my remarks over there.

I say "'A Man for All Seasons' is an old-fashioned, stagy movie that is not an interesting piece of film art and does not become so because an old man dies" and tangle with a few readers whose display of dumbness ought to make Roy think again about what level he thinks he's writing on.

Here's a piece in today's NYT explaining the "Man for All Seasons" phenomenon of the 1960s:

“A Man for All Seasons,” which came out in 1966, is a movie of a sort they don’t make anymore: smart, literate and, by today’s standards, a little earnest. Schools organized field trips so that students could be bused to see it, and it earned a huge popular following as well. It won Academy Awards for best director and best picture, and Mr. Scofield picked up the Oscar for best actor. There were also Oscars for best adapted screenplay, best costumes and best cinematography.

“A Man for All Seasons” was so evocative and so good-looking — and such a draw at the box office — that it spawned dozens of imitations. For a while you could hardly go to the movies or turn on highbrow television without seeing people in doublets, hose and ruffs, writing with quills.

Also middlebrow (and pathetically nerdy): insulting people with a quote from a Nathaniel Hawthorne story you read for high school English class.

AND: Thanks to everyone who criticized me for disrespecting a movie I've never seen. I've heard this criticism many times — like back in 2005, when I was taken to task for knowing not to waste my time seeing "King Kong." But this time, thanks to this new wave of criticism, I had the revelation that had evaded me for years. I finally realized what's really going on. How do you know you won't like it if you haven't tried it? It's guys who flip out when they hear that from a woman. It strikes to the very core, doesn't it? How do you know you won't enjoy sleeping with me?

When I was a kid, my mom surprised me for my birthday with two tickets to the movie at a downtown Chicago theater. Going downtown to the movies was a big deal! My date and I had a grand time. So I loved the movie then and do now too.

Ann Althouse, from the linked comments: Okay, Roy, you've baited me successfully. I'll do a post and point here, but mainly because I think my comments would amuse my readers -- the better class of readers that I have.

If you divide us into classes, I'd have to guess that I'm in the low-rent district - - Baltic Avenue, I guess. *laughs*

Perhaps if you ever need to take a break Trooper and I can run the place?

Wouldn't that be fabulous?

"Ruffage and Fruits"-I am pretty funny-even when I am not trying to be.

Someone said Ruffage and Fruits sounds like it could be a gay bar in the East Village-that is spot on.

There is this flower shop in Ptown, owned by these outrageous queens. The name of the place is "Consider The Lillies". The name cracks me up. When my friends and I pass the shop we pretend we work there. And if we worked there we would answer the phone, "Consider the Lillies, Steve Speaking, how may I help you"-in a really gay voice. And then precede to laugh our asses off.

Consider the Lillies is a fierce competitor of "Florabunda" which is the other flower shop in town.

I was around in 1966 and went to a few movies in those days, but that wasn't one. It might have interested me back then. It must have played around campus in the years went I was in college (1969-1973). In those years, we went to see every movie we had any interest in, because we never knew when we'd get another chance and assumed it would only be on TV with commercials messing it up. But "A Man for All Seasons" was the exactly kind of movie we shunned and scoffed at then.

I'm not getting why this is so hard to parse, although I do see two ways in which it could be read (neither of which involve a contradiction of the sort being "charged").

Wait--did I just contradict myself by saying "I'm not getting why this is so hard to parse" and "I do see two ways in which it could be read"?

Yeah, Ann was just letting everyone know that in 1969 she was tragically hip. I wonder if she supported the Vietnam War? Considering how much she loves the Iraq War, I bet she did. After all, just like the Iraq War, there wasn't any chance that she would have to sacrifice anything to prosecute that pointless war either.

I was around in 1966 and went to a few movies in those days. That wasn't one, though it might have interested me at that time.

[Reference to going off to college in '69 and being in that milieu 'til 73]

In those years, we went to see every movie we had any interest in, because we never knew when we'd get another chance and assumed it would only be on TV with commercials messing it up.

[RIA interjection: The types of movies you probably preferred a) really wouldn't work chopped up for TV and b) in many cases wouldn't have likely been deemed appropriate for TV anyway, at that time. But this puts me onto the path of reading into the text, which isn't necessary for version #1.]

But "A Man for All Seasons" was exactly the kind of movie we shunned and scoffed at during my campus years.

Me, I liked and like "Man for all Seasons," by the way, as well as other historical movies. I also like, and liked, the sort of films I am sure you were devouring in your college years (and I assume later).

I don't know, based on the photo the professor posted a few months ago of her college days, she was probably just drinking Boones farm apple wine, smoking a joint and getting laid like most of us did in college. You know, living life and not worrying about the great "issues" of the day. That’s for you nerds.

BTW, the reason I saw very few movies when I was in high school was that my allowance was $0.50 and it cost $2 to go to the movie theater in my town (Wayne, NJ). In college, it cost $0.50 to see a a double feature at Cinema Guild, which was about 1 block from East Quad, where we hippies lived. So we saw all the old Hollywood movies, all the French New Wave films, everything Bergman and Fellini ever made, etc. We were mainly catching up on on the old decades of films then while we had the chance. We were less likely to see new movie — they were more expensive and generally too square — but I remember that we thought very highly of "McCabe and Mrs. Miller" and some counterculture stuff like "Hi Mom" and "Putney Swope." We liked some science fiction things. For example, we saw "THX-138" when it was a first-run film. A few years later, we turned up our noses at "Star Wars" -- simply refused to see it.

The only historical costume drama I saw during my college years, I think, was "Nicholas and Alexandria," which was also the first movie I ever went to alone. My friends were all out of town -- it was some holiday and I was back early or something -- and I hoped like mad that no one would see me there. I was partly ashamed to be going to the movies alone, and partly ashamed to be seeing a movie like that.

oligonicella said..."Highbrow -- Intelligently discussing the pros and cons of literature, cinema and theater. Middlebrow -- Criticizing literature, cinema and theater one hasn't been exposed to. Lowbrow -- Telling people what kind of pants they should wear."

Actually, the most middlebrow thing is wanting to be highbrow and thinking that "intelligently discussing" only things that seem high class is highbrow. And calling movies "cinema." Seriously, Oligonicella, if you think you are above, say, Trooper York or Titus, you are a poor struggling middlebrow. In shorts.

I interpreted Ann's original statement to be: "My friends and I thought we were too cool for school in 1966 and would rather have run to see 'Blow Up.' 'A Man For All Seasons' was the kind of movie your parents would have seen. But then later when I saw it, I liked it."

Of course, I could be projecting here. I was 12 in 1966 and saw "A Man For All Seasons" on a school field trip. This caused the girls in my class to be bored silly and spend the whole movie sneaking looks at Tiger Beat whenever the theater wasn't too dark to read.

In my college years, I was in a summer theater company that did "A Man For All Seasons." We interpreted Cromwell, Richard Rich et al to be "Just like the guys from Watergate." In those immediate post-Watergate years, everything was "Just Like Watergate." So we then found the play to be profound and relevant, since in those days, everything had to be profound and relevant.

Me, I have no trouble discerning the difference between 1966 when the movie might have interested you and 1969-1973 when it didn't. It was a clear distinction that you made, and it wasn't even particularly ambigious. So I'm with you on that part. But what I'm not getting is how you can so definitively rubbish a movie you've never seen. The most you could say is that you weren't interested in seeing the movie because it seemed to be an old-fashioned, stagy movie that is not an interesting piece of film art, and based on that impression you were willing to chance missing a masterpiece in favor of wasting a couple of hours of your time on a turkey.

And actually, there was very little drinking in East Quad. I rarely even had 1 drink in college -- and the drinking age was 18. I don't think I got drunk even once. Drinking is what our parents did. "America Drinks and Goes Home." There weren't that many drugs either, actually. We used to go out for limeade! What was the name of that place where we used to get limeade -- limeade and grilled pecan rolls with ice cream? That was a typical outing after a double feature at Cinema Guild.

Oh, good lord, this notion that you have to see a movie to know it's not the sort of thing that you want to see! That's crazy. It's a crucial life skill to figure out what you don't want to do. A typical male thing too I think. Sort of: How do you know you won't like sleeping with me unless you try it?

You don't have time to see and read and do everything. I am very happy to define myself by the very many things I don't do as well as the few things I select to do. Since all I do is tell you that, what the hell is your problem? And of all the things to defend, "A Man for All Seasons"? Man, you are too square.

Oh, good lord, this notion that you have to see a movie to know it's not the sort of thing that you want to see!

Of course you can decide not to see a movie based on your preconceived notions of it. Everybody does that. But what you're not permitted to do is to then become a critical reviewer of the movie you chose not to see, which is what you've crossed over into. And I'm just guessing here, but I think that's the source of most of the negativity towards you about this.

Hippie chicks, long brown hair, tight bell bottoms, peasant blouse, henna colored nails, bare feet, sweet soul music on the stereo, incense sticks on the coffee table, Boones Farm apple wine, a couple of spliffs, complaining about those square professors who had a stick up their ass, White Castle take out hamburgers, the million dollar movie on Channel 9, the Three Stooges or Abbott and Costello during the rain delay, Chuck McCann and Buck Rodgers, the new album by this band the Who, and of course, best of all, bar none, no condoms.

I never even heard of the movie A Man For All Seasons, although I am quite a bit younger than most here-I think. Younger and cuter and hornier.

I did see a great movie last night called Gone Baby Gone. It was Ben Affleck's directorial debut and it was fabulous. It takes place in Dorchester, MA and is about an abduction of a little girl. Twist and turns everywhere fellow republicans. I was riveted to the TV. Amy Adams-tour de force. Casey Affleck-obviously talent runs in the family. Morgan Freeman-like you never have seen him before. Ed Harris-diva, I would do him. The movie was a roller coaster of a ride and every time you thought you knew where it was going you were thrown for a loop.

How is everyone today? I am feeling fine. For those of you who wonder why I sometimes end my postings with thank you I will tell you. It is because some of my postings are so personal and courageous. They are intelligent, insightful and raw and opens me up to the world. For that I deserve a thank you and that is why I say thank you.

But what you're not permitted to do is to then become a critical reviewer of the movie you chose not to see

Not permitted by whom, pray tell? Screw that. As my father would say, "Who died and made you God?"

Look, I don't happen to choose to take the same approach Althouse does. I don't pan, or praise, things I haven't read or seen. In fact, one of the things I "select" to do is read, especially, AND watch (at least once) all sorts of things specifically because it's my inclination to dismiss them. But that's me. My choice. It's an important value to me, and to hell with everyone else.

(I am able to determine what I don't want to do, by the way, perfectly well. Even if I end up doing it anyway. It is indeed a crucial life skill, even in the breech.)

Zeb, what the hell do you care how Althouse decides to approach stuff like this? Or how I would? Or anyone else? How the hell does it affect you?

One more thing: Some of the very same types of people (and I don't know if this is true of you, Zeb, or not--important caveat) who go on and on about this kind of thing every time it comes up, who pontificate so snottily and self-righteously, have NO problem proudly dismissing out of hand various books etc. which they've decided, for whatever reason, are politically incorrect or stupid or badly done, just because they're written by people, or types of people, of whom they don't approve.

Robin: "Ghoti" is "fish"? Batman: See here. English phonetics. GH becomes F, as in "tough" or "laugh". O becomes I as in "women". TI becomes SH as in "ration" or the word "nation". Robin: Holy semantics, Batman. You never cease to amaze me! Batman: No time for compliments, Robin. We must thwart some criminals. To the Batmobile(An Egg Grows in Gotham, Batman, Season 2 episode 13)

Hippie chicks, long brown hair, tight bell bottoms, peasant blouse, henna colored nails, bare feet, sweet soul music on the stereo, incense sticks on the coffee table, Boones Farm apple wine, a couple of spliffs, complaining about those square professors who had a stick up their ass, White Castle take out hamburgers, the million dollar movie on Channel 9, the Three Stooges or Abbott and Costello during the rain delay, Chuck McCann and Buck Rodgers, the new album by this band the Who, and of course, best of all, bar none, no condoms

All that except the White Castle hamburgers. San Francisco, you know. Chinese take out. Plus, Lone Ranger reruns at 3am dubbed in Japanese. Nothing funnier than the Lone Ranger saying "Hi Ho Silversan....Dozo!!!." The Japanese Roy was very polite to his horse. Well, it seemed funny at the time :-)

In my posting I explore deep issues. Hogs, logs and rare dogs. Many others wouldn't venture into this territory because it is dangerous and can open you to attack. But for me it is cathertic.

Everyday we make choices and my choices are to share my hog, pinch an impressive log and look down on others that don't have rare dogs.

I think many here dismiss me as a clown or fool and that it hurts. But I am more than that, much more, fellow republicans.

I also have something deeply personal to share with you today. Sometimes when I pinch a loaf I take my phone in with me and call one of my friends and leave the phone by my ass during loaf pinching and record it on my friends voicemail. This is a true story and is me exposing myself to all of you. Now embrace me and appreciate me for being so honest with you about this relevation.

How many times do I have to say my hair was red? Here's a color picture of me when I was about 17. For some reason, it's the most popular of all the pictures in my Flickr account.

"... tight bell bottoms, peasant blouse, henna colored nails, bare feet, sweet soul music on the stereo, incense sticks on the coffee table, Boones Farm apple wine, a couple of spliffs, complaining about those square professors who had a stick up their ass..."

Wait. At East Quad, the professors were hippies too. They had us boku-maru-ing during orientation.

"... White Castle take out hamburgers, the million dollar movie on Channel 9, the Three Stooges or Abbott and Costello during the rain delay, Chuck McCann and Buck Rodgers, the new album by this band the Who, and of course, best of all, bar none, no condoms."

That's too New York for me. We were at the University of Michigan. It wasn't 3 Stooges and Abbott and Costello. It was the Marx Brothers and Charlie Chaplin. And we didn't have TVs. If we wanted a hamburger, there was only one place: Krazy Jim's. And it wasn't soul music and The Who then (though in 1966 I was a member of The Who Fan Club). It was, for me at least, The Beatles, The Band, Bob Dylan, Laura Nyro, the Mothers of Invention, Neil Young, and Tyrannosaurus Rex.

As for condoms... well, you know, I may write about sex nearly every day, but I never say one thing about my sex life.

OK, now THAT picture DOESN'T make me think of Susan Atkins (thank God). But it does remind, a lot, of one my '60s babysitters, a gal who was a member of a 12-member, all-girl singing ensemble my dad coached at the local high school in Green Castle, Indiana, while he was working was working on the degrees he needed to go off and become a college music professor. She was a peach and a sweetheart with a beautiful voice, and she always smelled faintly of sugar cookies which, given young age at the time, was the best of all possible perfumes.

About 20 years later, her parents contacted my dad asking if he still had any of the pictures and posters he'd made of that group back in those days (my father was, and is, also a photographer). Turns out they, and the girl***, wanted to display them at her funeral, which they were all planning because she had an inoperable brain tumor. He couldn't find one, and it was one of the few times I've ever seen my father mist up. (Ironically, about 10 after that, I found one in MY collection of family artifacts, but hadn't remembered that I had it.)

So this picture makes me a little sad, remembering, but it sure beats thinking about the Manson family.

***I do remember her name, absolutely perfect and fitting, but no point in posting it on the internet.

Backtracking a bit, I have to say that as many Jews are leg men as ass men. But, on reflection, I have to admit they move on very quickly from subtle leg fondling to the grosser tuchas grab, the tuchas being the obverse, as it were, of the tit, or tits. T & A: nature's way of making us come back for more punishment.

Backtracking a bit, I have to say that as many Jews are leg men as ass men. But, on reflection, I have to admit they move on very quickly from subtle leg fondling to the grosser tuchas grab, the tuchas being the obverse, as it were, of the tit, or tits. T & A: nature's way of making us come back for more punishment.

Call any vegetable; call it by nameCall one today; when you get off the trainCall any vegetable; and the chances are goodThat the vegetable will respond to you

Rutabaga, rutabaga, rutabaga, rutabay-y-y-y-y...

Here's a color picture of me when I was about 17

Holy Mia-Farrow-meets-Ann-Margret, Batman!

We were at the University of Michigan.

Wie schade. No place to eat other than the Pretzel Bell, and the Border brothers' bookstore still years in the future. I miss their university press display, and the USGS maps upstairs by Travel and the cookbooks.

Peace and disorder in the world, The distinction between Friend and foe,Follow upon one anotherAs illusion begets delusion.A person of spiritual insightWill immediately recognize What is wrong and Before long be rid Of such an illusion;In such a case one’s trueFriend may seem a foe and One’s implacable foeMay appear a friend.Enmity and friendshipHave no permanent character; Both of them are illusions.

"It strikes to the very core, doesn't it? How do you know you won't enjoy sleeping with me?"

Oh I'm sure I would enjoy it. It's just that that open oozing sore on your mouth already has me bolt upright awake and my head hasn't even hit the pillow yet. Whaddaya say we just share a bowl of popcorn, cuddle for a while, and then call it a night?

Robin: [looking at Batgirl] You know something, Batman? Batman: What's that, Robin? Robin: She looks very pretty when she's asleep. Batman: I thought you might eventually notice that. That single statement indicates to me the first oncoming thrust of manhood, old chum. (Robin gets a Woody, Batman TV series Season 3 episode 12)

To all those criticizing Althouse for critiquing things she hasn't tried, I ask-- have you criticized things you haven't tried? If not, hypocrite! How do you know you wouldn't find that to be a superior approach if you tried it? You are criticizing that which you are unfamiliar with!

And if you have, then hypocrite! Cutting on Ann for doing the very things you have done.

"It is one of the unpleasant responsibilities of being a owner of a rare clumber."

Huh. So much for the conveniences of urban living. Back where I come from, we had people you could hire to do that sort of thing for you. We called them Professional Rare Clumber Ass Combers. They made good livings - drove nice cars, took vacations, sent their kids to college. Oddly enough, none of them owned rare clumbers themselves.

Meade said......."Oh I'm sure I would enjoy it. It's just that that open oozing sore on your mouth already has me bolt upright awake and my head hasn't even hit the pillow yet. Whaddaya say we just share a bowl of popcorn, cuddle for a while, and then call it a night?"

"Sometimes people ask me why I don't write about Althouse much any more. I usually shrug it off by saying she hasn't been that interesting lately, but that's just an evasion; the real reason is existential dread. When I encounter one of her synaptic fireworks displays, I begin by wondering how such a thing could possibly exist, and soon proceed to wondering why blogs exist, then why writing does, and finally I am reduced to grim contemplation of the meaninglessness of all existence.

My, er...deepest film experience was watching Claudia Beyond Belief Delicious Cardinale, in Girl With A Suitcase in a 42nd Street Art House, oh those wonderful old "Art" houses, long before the Disney storm troopers of wholesome destroyed that street of fantasy.

But then it all changed. White suits with black shirts and platform shoes. Disco balls. White powders of a strange and unfamilar type. Girls with tight spandex dresses and fuck me heels. Teased hair. Gelled hair. Porno guy mustaches. Gold chains. Open shirts. The Bee Gee’s. Dago Red and White Russians. More that a woman...more that a woman to me...

Ok, for starters, watch the film if your going to object to it. Respond to it openly; hey, maybe you'll like it, which might make for a more interesting post, than "didn't see it, not gonna." Isn't it odd for someone who constantly criticizes people for lack of careful reading to not even see the thing she's objecting to?

Along the same lines, I just don't know how you can attack people who HAVE seen it and have a different opinion about it! It doesn't mean they're right, just that you're views don't amount to much by comparison.

In the other post, I didn't find Althouse willing to talk to the person who would not play along with her supercilious tone all that ennobling. Such an approach in classroom may be acceptable, but in a blog thread?

Althouse would not accept the same tone she has just used on others applied to her by someone whose knowledge of a subject area is greater than her own, and rightly so. I think people only ask for the same treatment.

My absolute favorite part in the comments section over there is when one guy asks if it's so hard to understand that someone's views might shift between early high school and college--and another guy says yes.

"The quote in the post title is from "Egotism, or: The Bosom Serpent" by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Now if you'll excuse me, I am going to drink this bottle of whatever this is in front of me.

Do you actually consider that to be "criticism"? At least of the type which deserves serious response?

It seems more like insult-by-innuendo to me.

Joe said. "... You criticize others easily enough; you should learn to handle some turned back your way."

Do you think he meant Althouse should have thoughtfully and soberly addressed the specific points raised in Roy's post? (What were those, again, by the way?)

Do you think he meant Althouse should say, "Oh, you're right. I should approach my decisions the way you do. I must go rent AMFAS right away. Thank you for calling me an egotist and implying I'm a drunk. I appreciate the criticism."?

Or do you think he meant "Ignore it. You deserved it, anyway."? (In other words, shut up and sit down.)

I mean, really, Ron. Do you actually think Roy's blogpost, and the comments attached to it, are examples of "constructive personal criticism," which is--at least by lights--the only kind which might deserve thoughtful engagement?

You generally strike me as a reasonable commenter. I'm having a hard time understanding your reaction to all of this, given Roy's original post.

Son of Sam. Girls with brown hair not wanting to park on Shore Road anymore. Reggie and Billy and Thurman and George. A new club down the Bowery with all initials in the name. Crazy new bands that the chicks were into. The heads were talking? WTF. Line up the shots and beers at the pub before the show. Get em lubricated before the crazy music man. Don't wear your white suit down there man. Go undercover, jeans and your t-shirt so they can see you ain't a narc.

How do you know about something you haven't seen... Easy. By reading about it in greater depth than you're capable of analyzing by sitting there being spoon fed. I didn't see Fahrenheit 911 because I didn't care to contribute to Moore's wealth while exposing myself to wretch inducing propaganda, and yet I'm capable of discussing the film scene for scene and pointing out every single deceit therein beginning with the switcheroo in scene 1. To an extent you/they lack the patience to endure. That's how.

NYT:

* Smart and literate no longer made. (NYT crosswords has been dumbed down too, along with Jeopardy!)*Schools bussed kids to see it (Students also were treated to An Inconvenient Truth upwards to 3 times, without the need for any bussing about.)*Won Academy Awards (How Green Was my Valley beat out Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon, Return of the King beat Mystic River, Titanic beat Good Will Hunting, Forest Gump beat Pulp Fiction, etc. etc. etc. and so on and so forth, and on and on, and all the rest.)*Good box office draw (But wait! We're told the opinion of hoi-polloi doesn't count for anything, no fair switching terms)*Widely imitated (So what. So is Star Wars)*categorized and lauded as highbrow (There. That's all that NYT cares about)

Now, tell us exactly why the movie is great, not why other people think the movie is great. Regis has ruined me, for they have exposed me to what's going on up there, argumentum ad numerum, argumentum ad populum, argumentum ad authoritatum, dicto simpliciter among others, and how to contrive names for fallacies all on my own like argumentum conbibo meus baculum.

Having said all that, this actually does sound like a rather good film. I'll look for it to see for myself what all the fuss is about. They say the actor who recently died was really good in this one particular thing, on stage and in the film. I liked the filmd they ran recently with Katharine Hepburn about Eleanor of Aquataine, Lion in Winter or something. Also really liked the BBC series about the six main squeezes of Henry VIII, half of whom he killed. Also, the one about his daughter, the one he didn't much care for, who was that again?, of yeah, Elizabeth I, fantastic setting and costumes, although, you already know how it all turns out.

Sheese Frederson,Unlike you, some of us matured and moved on. View points change. No sane, normal, intelligent person holds the same views for thirty or forty years.

As to criticism- There are things called taste, choice, and discernment. Because one does not like or enjoy the same things you do gives you no right to slam them. Just because they pan something they would not like in the first place means they are human- they make choices.

You really should get out of that little bubble you live in and grow the eff up!

reader: I don't like Roy's original post nor his commenters. But I'm wincing more at Ann's behavior than theirs; why bother baiting such people? I'll admit I've wound up thrashing in the muck when I should leave well enough alone, and at times I've apologized to Ann for my behavior in a thread, because if you can't elevate the discussion -- or at least go for some schtick, which is my bete noir -- than I would prefer to say nothing. But then this is the Althouse blog, not the Wittgenstein blog, and I buy the package by weight, not by volume no matter how much has setted in shipment...

1. I responded (over there) because a commenter said that my 2 sentences were inconsistent (in a context where everyone was acting like I was the dumb one). I wanted to let her know she was mistaken. One thing led to another, and I thought it was amusing enough to post here, esp. since Roy didn't seem to believe it was really me.

2. People are missing the fact that I am self-deprecating about the attitude we took about movies and a lot of things back during college. I'm not saying I'm better than you because I avoided movies like that. I'm only saying that's the way it was. I'm recording the way I and other people thought about a few things 40 years ago. To me that's worth blogging. It's pretty obvious that the point of this blog is not to take a superior attitude about film or whatever. It is to express my point of view. And that's that.

Highbrow? "Highbrow" has been defined downward. "A Man for All Seasons" and the anglophilic stuff like it was exactly what "middlebrow" originally meant.

Not of that era, I have gotten a ton of 60s movies for family entertainment or boredom. "A Man for All Seasons" was even boring to my son and myself, both avid Euro history buffs. The above quote is correct. Middlebrow touted as high class, plodding movie.

Colleges were still somehow inducing student peer pressure to see Bergman and Fellini movies in the 80s, as well as the great Japanese ones of the 50s and 60s. all that stuff, BTW, was booked well in advance..

I do know that some of the middlebrow stuff induced me to read more so being in London and hitting the big historical places was an even bigger WOW!! - because I had read much.And I hated Shakespeare until the 1968 middlebrow version made it come alive for me and opened up a way for me to better visualize his craft.

People are missing the fact that I am self-deprecating about the attitude we took about movies and a lot of things back during college. I'm not saying I'm better than you because I avoided movies like that. I'm only saying that's the way it was. I'm recording the way I and other people thought about a few things 40 years ago. ...

I see no evidence she "baited" anyone. She basically defended herself (and made some witty comments) and launched a a reasonable counter-attack on one or two points.

It never ceases to amaze me that there are so many Althouse sycophants on this site who actually find her witty. My God, you people are troglodytes if you think she is the 21st century's answer to Dorothy Parker. (and I bet you have to google both "troglodyte" and Dorothy Parker.)

I finally realized what's really going on. How do you know you won't like it if you haven't tried it? It's guys who flip out when they hear that from a woman. It strikes to the very core, doesn't it? How do you know you won't enjoy sleeping with me?

Wow.

First as, has already been said, the problem is not that you won't watch it, it's:

Hey you're all grown up now. College days are over. Member of the firm. Suits from Brook Brothers. Drinks at Harry's of Hanover Square. Down at Fluties on Pier 17 where Jennifer Levin is a waitress. Oh shit that's the girl in the news. Damn man. Waddaya know. Hanging outside the North Star Pub and getting the Foster Oil Cans from the big wash tub with ice. Chatting up the secretaries in the street as you drink beers. Putting your tie and her bra on the ceiling at Jeremy’s Ale house. Sloppy Louie’s. Sloppy groping in the parking lot of the Fulton Fish Market. Hey let's hit the Doll House or the Pussycat lounge. What they got this new thing, the inter-what. Sounds cool. It'll never catch on. Why are all the young babes dressing like this Madonna girl…. We're going to party…. Karamu, fiesta, forever…. Come on and sing along! …..All night long! (All night)

I was kind of underwhelmed by A Man for All Seasons. Scofield was really good, and there were some good speeches and ideas, but most of the other actors seemed a little on the hammy side. The play was probably better, I'm guessing.

I took Ann's description of what they didn't see to be knowingly hyper-pretentious. More than a little self-mockery for our past (and present) selves is a good thing.

"Oh, we couldn't see that! That's Squaresville, man!" You can almost see them ambling back to The Mystery Machine as they and their talking Great Dane head out to investigate strange goings on at the old Withers' mill.

I didn't perceive it at all as a comment on the movie.

As a casual observer, however, I have noticed this: Althouse will say something relatively non-controversial, and someone else will read a volume of outrage into it, and this is akin to waving a red cape and yelling "Toro".

That's what they all say: She's stuck up! What a snob! Conceited! Prove you're not. With me!

Uh. Women do this, too. If you're not interested, they suggest you aren't a real man, or perhaps that you're a homosexual, or perhaps that you have a small dick, or perhaps that "she's too much woman for you to handle". And if you point out that presuming you know someone would be no good is arrogant and condescending (not to mention irrational, given how often women fall for false signals about cock size, sexual prowess, and fidelity), then you're just a typical man who can't take no for an answer. The fact is, many women are conceited and stuck-up and they do think "their pussies are made of gold". They are explicitly trading away the damn thing, and guys are complaining the price is too high. You want to make a goddamn sale, woman, lower your price. If a lot of potential customers are telling you that, it's time maybe to mark down your product.

My respect and admiration know no bounds for you Ann, but to say you "don't like" a movie you've never seen, well, that's anti-intellectualism at it's best.

It reminds me of what liberals used to say about Ronald Reagan--they had never tried, never considered, never "saw the movie" when it came to limiting the reach of government, getting government out of the day to day affairs of people, cutting taxes and whatnot. Well, we showed them the movie, we gave them the experience, and it was magical.

This is how conservatism wins--we experience, we "view" things, we assemble our opinions based on experience.

It is frankly dumb and superstitious to go into a discussion about something without having seen it or experienced it. This is what wooly headed liberals who are afraid of their own stink would do.

I can understand not wanting to see a movie because it is of a general type that one wouldn't want to see. I don't see Judd Apatow movies or chick flicks for that reason. That having been said, I think there's a big difference between eschewing a film on general principle and criticizing it individually on its merits when one hasn't seen it. And I really don't see any reasonable basis for making this a "typical male" type of argument. Still, this seems like a lot of pixels being spent over what would in real life by minor barside chatter.

I've never seen A Man for All Seasons. I guess the anti-clericist and nationalist in me rebels against a movie in which Thomas More, a priestly traitor to his king, is a hero. I did like Anne of the Thousand Days and The Lion in Winter, however. Ann, did you like those films, or are all late-60s medieval/Renaissance historical dramas verboten?

You missed two good ones. Lion in Winter has wonderfully crisp and witty dialogue, as well as a young Anthony Hopkins as a bisexual sociopathic prince, and Anne of the Thousand Days has great staging and costumes, as well as a raging Richard Burton at his drunken lothario best. Get thee to the DVD shop.

I haven't seen any of the Tyler Perry movies. I know they are as lame ass as could possibly be. I never saw Porky's, or Dumb and Dumber. I know they're bad and I pity those who think they're great. Yup, I could be grievously in error...but it's not that important. After a certain age you really need to edit down the things you see or read that just aren't going to be worthwhile. If you're wrong, you're wrong. But probably you're right.